Humans have the ability to find patterns in every aspect of life, including speculative views of events based on very limited data.
Does the 777 FD logic represent a poorly engineered technology, something which enables opportunity for 'error', being a mismatch between the procedure for bounced landing vs an airborne GA. (Note a conceptual similarity with SFO 777 auto thrust; it's so much easier to blame the human, demand more training, vigilance, monitoring; opposed to re-engineering the aircraft to help the often resource limited pilot). How many 777 FD 'near misses' have their been, written off as human error, not understanding the system, or because other pilots manage to cope (they know/ remember), then everyone is expected to cope in all situations, all of the time.
As an extremely speculative thought, with the hazard of biased false pattern matching.
What if this is similar to BA 38.
Un-commanded thrust reduction late on final ... Heavy landing ... GA procedure, but no thrust response ... Then a subsequent heavier landing .. Fuel tank rupture, and Fire.
But then that's just a pattern, a figment of imagination ... ... Or is it worth a thought for safety if only to dismiss it?